SIDDANAIKA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the case has come up for preliminary hearing in 'B' group, by the consent of the learned Counsel, the matter is taken up for disposal. Government Advocate takes notice for Respondents -1 and 2. Respondent -3 to Respondent -5 though served remain un -represented.

(2.) THIS is a petition filed against the order of the Land Tribunal in case No. LRF/172/1979 -80 dated 22.2.1993 which is produced and marked as Annexure -A to the Writ Petition. Petitioner submits that he is a tenant in lands bearing Sy. Nos. 130/1 measuring 30 guntas, 21 guntas, Sy. No. 131/2 measuring 22 guntas, Sy. No. 120 measuring 1 acre 23 guntas and Sy. No. 121 measuring 27 guntas of Hedathale village, Kavalande Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore district. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The Petitioner is cultivating the land in question as a tenant since more than 25 years and paying gutta in the form of half crop share basis to the owners. Since the Petitioner is cultivating the land as on 1.3.1974 as a tenant, he filed Form No. 7 on 29.6.1979. The Petitioner while filing the application, though has given correct extent and boundaries of the lands in question, by oversight has not mentioned the survey numbers. The Tribunal took the said application for enquiry and examined the owners of the lands in question. In their deposition, the owners themselves have admitted that the survey numbers mentioned above refer only to the lands which the Petitioner has claimed occupancy rights. The witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner have also stated that the Petitioner is cultivating the lands in question on vara basis and paying half crop share to the owners. Further the owners are residing in some other village and not in the village where the lands in question are situated. The Tribunal without holding proper enquiry and ignoring the statement of the parties has rejected the application of the Petitioner for grant of occupancy rights as well as his application for permitting him to amend Form No. 7 by incorporating the survey numbers.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon the decision of this Court in ILR 1987 Karn 1779 in the case of Seethadevi Vs. Narayana Kamath, ILR (1987) KAR 1779 paras 5 and 6 which reads as follows: